Budget 2002: press round-up

One word - gamble - sums up the press reaction to Gordon Brown's decision to raise taxes and spending in yesterday's Budget. Mixing surprise, admiration and alarm in equal measure, this morning's newspapers analyse what they all see as a double bet by the chancellor. Is the public prepared to pay more tax and can the government deliver promised improvements before the next election?

The Guardian has no doubt that the bet is worth taking. "The first, and most important, response to yesterday's Budget was unalloyed celebration. At long last the health service is to get the resources it needs," the paper says in its leader column, arguing that the chancellor's bold move has created political distance between the government and the opposition.

After the Budget, it concludes, "some Labour MPs were talking of the 'rebirth of politics'. They may not be far wrong".

Looking beyond the political implications of yesterday's news, the paper's Hugo Young argues that "the Budget marks a deep question about the character of the British people. What do they really care about? What sort of society do they believe in?"

The Telegraph, too, is certain that the Budget marks a fundamental political change - but is much less convinced by its chances of success. "Time to take your medicine" the paper headlines its front-page report, arguing that "Labour returned to traditional tax and spending policies yesterday".

Admitting that the nation's "economic fundamentals" are sound, the Telegraph's leader column believes that the chancellor has "bet the shop" on fixing the NHS. "He has staked his management of the British economy on this hope. Where's his famous prudence now?" it asks.

"Was that it, then?" asks the Times' economic commentator Anatole Kaletsky, saying that there is no new thinking behind the chancellor's plans. "It was perhaps the clearest and boldest reassertion of social democracy to be heard since the 1970s from the front bench in the House of Commons." Mr Brown "is certainly entitled to try this experiment one last time", he says, but "the odds are stacked against him".

This note of uncertainty is shared by the tabloid press. Describing the planned tax rises as "eye-watering", the Daily Mail highlights changes to national insurance payments that it says are equal to putting an extra four pence on income tax. "Old Labour MPs whooped with delight as the chancellor swung the party back to its tax and spend roots, in the process reading the last rites over the third way," it reports. "It amounts to an enormous political gamble."

The Mirror is equally direct. "Ouch! That hurt Gordon... it had better work," the paper says on its front page. The Sun's warning is even starker. "Gordon Brown took the p yesterday" the paper reports on its front page before taking a gentler line on its inside pages. With its Fleet Street rivals, the Sun concludes that the chancellor has "placed a £40bn bet on curing the NHS in time for the next election".

The FT takes a dim view of the chancellor's tax changes. Looking at the Budget from the view of employers, who will carry part of the burden of increased national insurance rates, the paper says that the increased rate was an unexpected "sting in the tail" in an acceptable Budget that had otherwise been well-trailed in advance.

On its front page the paper reports that "business turned on the chancellor yesterday" - with a warning in particular that employment could suffer as a result of the increase.

The Sun doubts this, using the chancellor's changes to the taxation of small businesses to back its claim that commerce gave the Budget a "cautious welcome".

The general public gives its verdict in the many readers' panels that fill the pages of every paper this morning. The Times assembled a jury to watch the chancellor's performance: their verdict was that they had been "let off lightly".

Another panellist, in the FT, reflects the general reaction to the Budget: "more money for the NHS is one thing but the key is how it is spent".

Attempting to answer this question, most papers draw upon the Wanless report on the future of health care in Britain, which was also published yesterday and argues for massive spending increases over 20 years.

"Wonderful Wanless," says the Guardian. "The Tories are fools to oppose this reform".

Or perhaps not, if you agree with the Independent. Commenting on what it believes was a "disappointing" Budget the Independent's leader writers believe that the chancellor was wrong not to challenge "the monolithic culture of one of the western world's largest centralised bureaucracies".

The paper concludes that the chancellor "has approached his task by closing down debate and taking the wrong course of simply pouring more money into a centralised, unresponsive service".